Why hide where others may damage property?

[+HollowFox]

I'm fairly new to caching, but have seen enough damage to property to worry. A cache hidden under a commercial sign - electric box open, cables pulled... A cache hidden under a sculpture, downtown, surrounded by beautiful landscaping - plants trampled. A cache hidden in a palm tree - lots and lots of leaves or fronds ripped up by people looking for cache. The list can go on and on.

We, as geocachers, need to be a bit more conscious of the surroundings and not hide caches where others might not be as careful as we might be.

Just a thought!

[+humboldt flier]

I'm fairly new to caching, but have seen enough damage to property to worry. A cache hidden under a commercial sign - electric box open, cables pulled... A cache hidden under a sculpture, downtown, surrounded by beautiful landscaping - plants trampled. A cache hidden in a palm tree - lots and lots of leaves or fronds ripped up by people looking for cache. The list can go on and on.

We, as geocachers, need to be a bit more conscious of the surroundings and not hide caches where others might not be as careful as we might be.

Just a thought!

 

And a very good thought it is. In my opinion caches placed in sensitive areas need direct and specific hints. If we become responsible for thrashing and trashing an area as we search the playground will be made smaller as land owners or managers begin to view the activity in a negative light because of the damage we cause.

[+FolsomNatural]

More than "just a thought" - it's a genuine concern and shows,

like most of us, that you care for the environment.

 

The Guidelines to submitting a cache DO in fact address the

need for choosing a site that will not result in damage to

the environment.

 

I am new, too, to this hobby, so I am still learning about

the rules and etiquette involved, but I would guess it's

appropriate to raise the question with the cache owner, and

perhaps they could relocate the cache.

[+humboldt flier]

FWIW: The forum is littered with a number of threads having this theme yet areas continue to be thrashed.

 

I assume the thrashers play the game using a different sub-set of rules. ( The quest for a smiley seems to erode common sense )

[+StarBrand]

Appropriately sized containers for the area and specific hints should be used when sensitive areas are nearby any cache hide. I am definitely not a fan of electrical box hides. No excuse to go on a 'scorched earth' hunt for any cache though. Both seekers and hiders need to be just a little more aware of what they are doing.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm always taken aback when cachers feel they have to disassemble or damage property to find a cache. The cache was hidden without damaging property (assuming it follows the guidelines) so why do you need to damage anything to find it?

 

However, I've seen this happen a few times. Fortunately, it is rare around here. I guess some people are too stupid to be geocachers, but they try anyhow. Perhaps some have a misunderstanding of the find count or of the meaning of a DNF log. They decide that it's better to show everyone how stupid and inconsiderate they are, and wreck everything, rather than to admit they didn't find the cache and move on.

 

I now know that I have to consider that some idiot may try to find one of my hides and therefore I can't make it too hard. I need to select locations where it is hard to do damage, and avoid areas where there is equipment that some fool will decided needs to be taken apart, I have to provide hints on the cache page that are essentially spoilers (because if I don't give a hint some dope will take that a permission to destroy something). I can make my hides PMO in hopes that premium member have more sense, but this isn't always the case. I can make puzzles that are hard to solve, hoping that someone intelligent enough to solve them would know better than to damage something in the search. But ultimately I have to place caches where they are idiot proof, and I have to consider not only that a difficult hide may frustrate an idiot, but that an easy one that gets muggled may result in the same problem.

[AZcachemeister]

Many hiders will assume* that seekers will be as careful as they would be when seeking the cache, and that they would not cause damage in their search.

This is probably an overly optimistic view of human nature.

"THE HUNT" appeals to us on a very primal level, and when on "THE HUNT", our higher levels of reasoning can be pushed into the background.

Finding the target supercedes all other imperatives.

Indeed, I have occasionally found myself sucked into this pattern.

 

In cases where a 'vigorous' search might cause damage, the owner should provide a clear and unmistakable hint so the seeker can make the find.

 

*When you ASSUME, you make an a** out of U and ME.

[mtbikernate]

It's a good sentiment. I've certainly visited caches where the surrounding vegetation has been trampled pretty severely. Lately, though, not so much. I live in an area with only a handful of resident cachers and only occasional visitors. Some caches don't get found for years even though they're right in town and not hard to get to. I recently found one that had gone 3yrs since the last find. As such, there's rarely evidence of cachers...not even geotrails. I like this part about caching here.

 

As a cache owner, I have no qualms about archiving a cache that's resulting in the surroundings being destroyed. I have one that has a 2nd stage with a chirp and a physical container with coordinates. The physical container is a beast to find and I keep an eye on it to make sure folks aren't destroying the area. Thankfully it gets so few attempts, I have had trouble finding the container when I've gone to check on it.

[+Sagefox]

However, I've seen this happen a few times. Fortunately, it is rare around here.

 

Our caching territory spans about 1600 miles of the west coast and I, too, believe damage from caching is rare. The deal is, though, it is like the evening news, a few bad situations stick in our craw and it begins to feel like an epidemic.

 

Often, too, I see comments about damage at a specific cache and I don't agree with that assessment. Some folks are a bit quick to criticize.

[+geodarts]

It happens. I have seen areas where sprinklers are disassembled or vegetation has been broken or trampled. I know one area where a park worker asked that a cache be removed because flowers were being trampled, and land managers near where I live believe that caching has trashed the environment. It only takes one or two incidents.

 

Locally, I have sometimes wondered why people hide caches off trail in bay trees in an area that is sometimes referred to as being Ground Zero for Sudden Oak Death.

 

We need to be conscious about our hides, and reminders about this are always important. We also need to be conscious about how we look for caches. And reminders about that are always important.

[+terrkan78]

I think different people have different ideas of what constitutes "damage" to flora. Around here it rains a lot and plants grow fast and thick. One person walking off trail in soft or muddy ground inevitably leaves footprints and smashed vegetation in their wake. It grows back pretty fast (unless more feet take the exact same path). Some people call leaving any trace at all "damage." Others don't.

 

I honestly don't know which is worse - walk on a geotrail, thereby making it slightly more visible than it was before I trod on it, or walk on top of the vegetation off trail, which in soft or muddy dirt (common around here) definitely leaves a trace. Either way I've left a trace.

 

With respect to scorched earth searching, what makes an area "sensitive"? From my own experience, I think I left more of a mark when searching in wet, moist areas, but that's also where the plants will grow back the quickest. I think I've left less of a mark when searching in dry, desert-like areas, but I've heard it takes forever for anything to grow in those locations and, thus, it's sensitive. What isn't sensitive? I mean other than sidewalks or asphalt. My own subjective definition of "sensitive" is any location where non-geocachers are likely to see the traces I might leave behind if I circle each and every tree/stump/log/etc. three times while touching everything in my search for the cache (like along a popular trail on the outskirts of town). If I'm out in the middle of nowhere, I don't worry much about it - if it takes three circles around touching everything in sight to find the cache, then so be it. I recognize that that's an environmentally pathetic definition of "sensitive."

 

I've taken this all into consideration when hiding caches myself. I found a spot where you can access the cache with both feet firmly planted on the main trail. Those spots are few and far between, and, frankly, it's kind of a not-much-special-about-it spot. Whereas had I hidden the cache up on the ridgeline 200 ft. above the main trail (which would require people to either bushwhack or make a geotrail to the cache), that'd be a much more impressive spot for the cache. But it's along a popular trail (thus "sensitive" in my book). I have another cache where you'll have to bushwhack and smash all sorts of vegetation getting to the cache, but it's in the middle of nowhere. For all I know it could actually be in a more environmentally "sensitive" area that the first. I kind of just shake my head, because I don't really know, and I suspect I'd get different answers (as to what constitutes "sensitive") depending on who I asked. I kind of like my own definition.

[+power69]

Many hiders will assume* that seekers will be as careful as they would be when seeking the cache, and that they would not cause damage in their search.

This is probably an overly optimistic view of human nature.

"THE HUNT" appeals to us on a very primal level, and when on "THE HUNT", our higher levels of reasoning can be pushed into the background.

Finding the target supercedes all other imperatives.

Indeed, I have occasionally found myself sucked into this pattern.

 

In cases where a 'vigorous' search might cause damage, the owner should provide a clear and unmistakable hint so the seeker can make the find.

 

*When you ASSUME, you make an a** out of U and ME.

i've seen pages that say theres no need to open or disassemble anything and the site is still tore up!

never underestimate the power of a smilie denial

[+briansnat]

In over a thousand cache hunts and maint trips I've seen rare instances of damage. I can count the geotrails I've seen on both hands with a few fingers left over. In every instance they were on caches that were within a few feet of a road, parking lot or trail. Not exactly sensitive areas. For the overwhelming majority of the caches I've found it would take a professional tracker to determine that there is a cache there.

 

Where I have seen damage most frequently is on urban and suburban hides where I've encountered bent electrical box covers, damaged sprinkler heads and the like. But even with these I've seen damage maybe 20 times. Perhaps because I don't do a lot of these kinds of caches I don't see as much damage as those who frequent this sort of cache.

 

I see these complaints here periodically and wonder about the kinds of caches these people are finding. Is it possible that people who see this most often are those who focus on urban/suburban hides? I ask this because I just ain't seeing much of it in the places I cache most often, meaning the forest. If the damage is more prevalent with urban/suburban caches could it be because they tend to attract the numbers cachers whose only focus is finding caches as soon as possible so they can move on to the next one?

Edited May 9, 2011 by briansnat

[+the4dirtydogs]

As a hider I have found that there are cachers out there that don't cache like we do. I have been back to do maintenance on caches just to see the area thrashed. That's when these caches are archived. You can't control the way people cache. Some just like to crush and rip apart everything in site.

 

I really like Tozs' post. I had a good laugh. I agree some people can be idiots when searching for caches. I like to call them LOCUSTS. That's the way they cache...........destroy everything in site until they find the cache. I see most of this damage in the city hides.

 

It really boils down to some people just don't care.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

As a hider I have found that there are cachers out there that don't cache like we do. I have been back to do maintenance on caches just to see the area thrashed. That's when these caches are archived. You can't control the way people cache. Some just like to crush and rip apart everything in site.

 

I really like Tozs' post. I had a good laugh. I agree some people can be idiots when searching for caches. I like to call them LOCUSTS. That's the way they cache...........destroy everything in site until they find the cache. I see most of this damage in the city hides.

 

It really boils down to some people just don't care.

Hiders could help prevent such practices by not hiding a 3.5/1.5 in landscaped areas.

[+roziecakes]

I think it's a good sentiment as well; but I agree with some other posters that it's definitely not something that I see often. I would say the best thing you can do is to be as careful as you can yourself, and try to educate others that you talk to when caching, or at events, and when you hide caches, post as careful of hints as possible.

[+the4dirtydogs]

As a hider I have found that there are cachers out there that don't cache like we do. I have been back to do maintenance on caches just to see the area thrashed. That's when these caches are archived. You can't control the way people cache. Some just like to crush and rip apart everything in site.

 

I really like Tozs' post. I had a good laugh. I agree some people can be idiots when searching for caches. I like to call them LOCUSTS. That's the way they cache...........destroy everything in site until they find the cache. I see most of this damage in the city hides.

 

It really boils down to some people just don't care.

Hiders could help prevent such practices by not hiding a 3.5/1.5 in landscaped areas.

I totally agree with you on that. That's why I don't hide these type of hides anymore. I learned my lesson and just pass on my info to other cache hiders in our area.

[+Don_J]

Many hiders will assume* that seekers will be as careful as they would be when seeking the cache, and that they would not cause damage in their search.

This is probably an overly optimistic view of human nature.

"THE HUNT" appeals to us on a very primal level, and when on "THE HUNT", our higher levels of reasoning can be pushed into the background.

Finding the target supercedes all other imperatives.

Indeed, I have occasionally found myself sucked into this pattern.

 

In cases where a 'vigorous' search might cause damage, the owner should provide a clear and unmistakable hint so the seeker can make the find.

 

*When you ASSUME, you make an a** out of U and ME.

 

I'm happy to say that this has never happened to me, even when I was sure of a FTF. Hint was "hanging" and the GPSr was pointing to a tree ten feet across ice plant landscaping. I could see the CO's footprints, and I'm certain there is a clear trail now, but I wasn't going into the landscape, and I made that clear with my DNF log.

 

I have found quite a few caches by looking with my eyes instead of my hands. If I have to move a branch, I do it carefully. If I pick up a rock thinking the cache might be under it, I put it back exactly how I found it.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

In over a thousand cache hunts and maint trips I've seen rare instances of damage. I can count the geotrails I've seen on both hands with a few fingers left over. In every instance they were on caches that were within a few feet of a road, parking lot or trail. Not exactly sensitive areas. For the overwhelming majority of the caches I've found it would take a professional tracker to determine that there is a cache there.

 

Where I have seen damage most frequently is on urban and suburban hides where I've encountered bent electrical box covers, damaged sprinkler heads and the like. But even with these I've seen damage maybe 20 times. Perhaps because I don't do a lot of these kinds of caches I don't see as much damage as those who frequent this sort of cache.

 

I see these complaints here periodically and wonder about the kinds of caches these people are finding. Is it possible that people who see this most often are those who focus on urban/suburban hides? I ask this because I just ain't seeing much of it in the places I cache most often, meaning the forest. If the damage is more prevalent with urban/suburban caches could it be because they tend to attract the numbers cachers whose only focus is finding caches as soon as possible so they can move on to the next one?

 

I see this more often than I like in urban areas. Usually in the landscaping at the edges of subdivisions, or flower beds at the edges of commercial parking lots. I have really only seen one instance that has concerned me while hiking. Cache was only a week old and the native grass had had been flattened in what looked like a mini crop circle. This was in a conservation area where the rangers have basically been ignoring us as long a we behave ourselves. A note to the CO and it was archived the next day.

 

If you are hiking in this area, every oak tree that you see off of a main trail will have a small trail running to it, regardless of if there is a geocache there or not. The animals make them to get to the shade during our very hot summers. Place a cache there and it becomes a "Geotrail" and it's existence is blamed on bad cache placement.

 

Edit to add: By this area, I do not mean the conservation area mentioned above. I mean all four mountain ranges that surround our valley

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don_J